 Show
Open Preview See a Problem?We’d love your help. Let us know what’s wrong with this preview of Crystallizing Public Opinion by Edward L. Bernays. Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Friend ReviewsTo see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Reader Q&ABe the first to ask a question about Crystallizing Public Opinion Community Reviews· 666 ratings · 53 reviews Start your review of Crystallizing Public Opinion
I have read, in quick succession, both this book and Bernays’ Propaganda. Really, you can safely read one or the other – since reading both is probably over-kill, despite them both being rather short. Of the two, I would
suggest you read this one, if mostly for the introduction by Stuart Ewen. In fact, something happens in the introduction to this book that does as much to help explain Bernays and his ideas as anything else in the book. Ewen explains that he had assumed Bernays was dead – but the Ewen explains that he had assumed Bernays was dead – but then finds out that not only is he not dead, but he is alive and well and living within relatively easy access. Admittedly, Bernays was nearly 100 at the time, so
Ewen assuming he was dead wasn’t entirely unreasonable. But the fact of him being alive was not the thing I found particularly interesting in the introduction. While Ewen and Bernays were chatting about how public relations works, Ewen tried to turn the conversation to something practical, you know, a kind of worked example. Ewen had given Bernays a copy of a book he had written on PR, and so Bernays talks to him about how a public relations person might go about encouraging more readers to pick
up such a book. Bernays outlines a scheme to get the American Consumer League to invite Ewen to discuss the merits of his book, since it so closely reflects the interests of the ACLs members. Bernays makes it clear that in his role as a public relations person much of this would be done quietly and without fanfare. Basically, faceless men chatting with powerful people behind the scenes making sure a good idea was put in the way of these powerful people who would be made aware of the benefit of
that good idea both to themselves and therefore balls would start rolling. This would be all done by people with power, but without glory. Ewen is flattered by watching this example play out – but then, a couple of weeks later, the theoretical example starts literally coming to life. Ewen is contacted by the president of the Consumer Federation of America asking if he would like to be a keynote speaker … and so on. Although it seems improbable that Bernays was not involved in getting Ewen
this invitation, there is, in fact, never any evidence that he did. Well, other than the sheer insane improbability that this series of events, completely matching Bernays’ hypothetical discussion, could really have happened as a coincidence. There is a very strong, anti-democratic theme to Bernays’ theories. They run like this: we live in a very complicated world. In fact, it is so complicated we should, if we were honest with ourselves, hardly be certain about anything. How many of us
really understand the complexities of free trade or of abortion or of the intricacies of virology? And yet, if you ask person on the street their opinion on any of these things topics they are not only likely to have an opinion, but they are likely to hold that opinion for grim death as if their lives literally depended upon it. In fact, the more seemingly divorced from their actual life a topic might be, the more apparently certain they will be of their opinions in relation to that topic. And how does the person on the street settle on these opinions? Certainly not by following some logical process – Bernays makes it clear that ‘experts’ are much less certain than the person on the street. Mostly, the hoi polloi become so certain because they think in images and stereotypes, rather than in logic. They are much more likely to believe things on the basis of what they hear from thought-leaders they trust. There is, of course, something to this. We certainly can’t all be
experts on all things. Sometimes we do feel we need to have an opinion on things we barely understand – how many people on either side of the Creationism/Evolution debate could really provide a coherent explanation of modification via natural selection, for example? But if you can’t do that, on either side of the debate, what sort of opinion do you really have? His distaste of democracy is based on this, and the fact that since the ideas of the mass of people are based on such tenuous
foundations, it is relatively easy to shift these ideas, as long as the shift takes into consideration the ‘moral’ considerations that are likely to be at the base of these opinions held by the person on the street. That is, if you want to shift people’s ideas, you are probably wasting your time using ‘reason’ with them, rather you need to appeal to the concerns that such a person might find most compelling. These concerns are likely to differ for different people, that is, differ according to
their place in society, to the role they play, to the kinds of groups and associations they belong to, and so on. This book made me think of Bourdieu’s fields, capitals and his theory of habitus. That is, a person is likely to interpret the world according to the position they play in the game. Bernays could certainly be called a ‘relativist’ – but only in much the same way that Foucault can be called a relativist. In both cases, despite this being a kind of swear-word in certain circles,
essentially all that is being argued is, at least what seems to me, the obvious fact that people understand the world according to how they experience it, and that few people experience the world in the same way. Bernays says that understanding how people understand the world is the best way to understand how you might shape their opinions and actions. Bernays does not see the manipulation he proposes as part of his model of public relations as being negative. Rather, he believes democracy
is a kind of evil that we are stuck with, that there is no going back to a form of society where the castes are clearly defined and people know their place. And so, since we need to ensure we are ruled by an aristocracy – in so far as these rulers are ‘the best’ among us – people then need to have their opinions and preferences shaped so as to ensure they meet the needs of these otherwise natural leaders. The problem is that there is no certainty that people will follow the best leaders.
There is also no certainty that the best leaders will know the best ways to encourage people to think in the right way. And so, this is the role of the public relations expert. Bauman says somewhere that the point of marketing is not to advertise a product so much, as to encourage a series of questions to be increasingly asked in society to which the inevitable answer is the product. Again, this is an idea Bernays would agree with. A few years ago, I read the most remarkable thing
– it was that there are now more people working in public relations than there are journalists. I’ve never been able to find the article were I read that, but the author also said (again, something Bernays says here) that the skill set for a journalist is very much the same as that of a public relations expert. The article I read also pointed out that people working in public relations are paid much more than journalists, and probably graduated from the same course. The difference between the
two occupations should be quite clear. The point of journalism, at least in theory, is a kind of dogged seeking after the truth. The point of public relations is to display something in the best of all possible lights. The death of journalism and the rise of public relations really ought to be something to deeply concerns us. That is what I say, at least, it that is not something Bernays would agree with. One of Bernays’ greatest victories as a master in public relations was to make it
acceptable for women to smoke in public. I’ve started reading his autobiography, so there may be another review of this man coming – that said, I have to say this was a fascinating book. I didn’t agree with a lot of it, and it made me feel uncomfortable while I read it, but it opened my eyes to problems with democracy that, if we are to defend it (and I certainly think we must) need to be considered. I certainly do not agree that democracy is something we should get around – but it is hard to
argue with the notion that people can be manipulated into actively undermining their own best interests. Even if Bernays would argue that since most people don’t know their own best interests, it is best they are ‘crystalised’ towards the best.
Simply a fascinating read – not only educational but reflective of an America new to radio and the newspaper industry that was still evolving, this book was
published in 1923 and the copyright was renewed in 1951. The book here is only different from the 1923 original in that Stuart Ewen provides an introduction that is a lengthy description of his professional endurance to speak with Mr. Bernays. He is able to do so in the early 1990’s before Mr. Bernays passes away at the age of 103 in 1995 8 Simply a fascinating read – not only educational but reflective of an America new to radio and the newspaper
industry that was still evolving, this book was published in 1923 and the copyright was renewed in 1951. The book here is only different from the 1923 original in that Stuart Ewen provides an introduction that is a lengthy description of his professional endurance to speak with Mr. Bernays. He is able to do so in the early 1990’s before Mr. Bernays passes away at the age of 103 in 1995 8 months’ shy of his 104th birthday. Mr. Bernays we learn in the introduction by Mr. Ewen was the nephew to
Sigmund Freud; his mother was the sister to the renowned psychologist and his father was the brother to Sigmund Freud’s wife. Thus, making him a double nephew to one household biologically speaking. This was merely an interesting side point to the greater topic of Public Relations Counsel (PRC). He has had his critics over the years – but this book in my opinion is simply critically well and very relevant today in the computer age. Mr. Bernays touches upon public opinion in association with
the newspaper industry of 1923; the radio was still relatively new at this point in time and he touches upon the PRC and the medium that has yet to have been tapped into for this consumer need. Unlike the websites that profess he assisted the acceptability of women smoking in the late 1920’s; he actually had women doing this during suffrage marches in the late second decade of the 20th century – most seem to report this point as an occurrence 10 years after the fact. Effectively Mr. Bernays
breaks down the PRC need by societal needs. He reflects historically and accurately at how during the time of the American Revolution pamphlets were all that was needed to express an opinion locally – but matters change with the influx of immigration from all corners of Europe during the late 1800’s. Mr. Bernays spends a great deal of effort in reinforcing the fact that the press has an ethical obligation and so too the persons later to become PRC professionals. Today of course the PRC is simply
known as “PR”. After reading this educational book on the matter it is apparent to the times that both the newspapers and PR types have left a lot of ethical decisions behind – that point too could be argued by some in that the evolution of PR and newspapers to radio to television to computer to cell phone apps has simply placed the news at the need of the PR and vice versa – after all it is society as a whole that has also forced this matter of “news feeds” and “public opinion” to be told (at
least in part) what they want to hear. One must be willing however to take a deeper dive as well. One person’s “advertisement” is another person’s “propaganda”. Mr. Bernays stated “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are
molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.” The question I am left with is whether there is a moral compass here – the goal seems to be making money and nothing more; regardless of whether the item is “good” or “bad”. In the late 1920’s as he was continuing the smoking acceptability for women he forced his own wife to quit smoking – this before 1930. In this manner observation can lend
credence to the point that “money” was the goal. Maybe I am off base but this is what it “feels like” to me. Making things “necessary” for public consumption by mere association. Ivory Soap sculpting became popular by this point in time as well in order to get children to bathe regularly. But Public Relations Counsel or Public Relations never became an institution to which persons had to become certified as say a Doctor, Lawyer, or Police Officer for that matter. Hence, any person could and
still can become a PR Person with no credentials other than the ability to show they helped someone or some other company “make money”. Early on the evolution of this process became a part of the political machine. The political machines of many countries and leaders – the unfortunate thing is the link between Nazism and Bernays’ processes – Bernays would write in the 1960’s how disgusted he became as a result of discovering this point later. Either way there are two sides to this coin of
“public opinion”. Increasingly I for one am sick of public opinion polls – in one sense they are necessary to gain a “gauge” on the issues and products of the day – on the other hand it feels as though these processes by many who are merely talking heads, beat the public opinion polls to death and many more are unable to “explain” what they mean. This is where in “my opinion” important to me only that PR people and “public opinion polls” are irrelevant. The “herd” however seems to follow the
person in front of them, taking one step in front of the other – the true counter culture today are independent thinkers and doers in “my opinion”. This book is an important read for every independent thinker; it is good to consider how the masses are swayed; this book is as relevant today as it was in 1923 – the evolution of technology may have changed but the basic mechanisms remain. This is why I give this book 5 stars.
Fascinating look into early 2oth century PR. Biggest idea: don't pass on news, make news. i.e. create events that get covered - do things! Do things out of the normal routine to get coverage. Do things that
will be covered in a way that reflects your goals. A few nugget from the book that could have been pulled from 2016 election coverage: "axiomatic that men who know little are often intolerant of a point of view that is contrary to their own." "the printing press a wonderfully effective means for Biggest idea: don't pass on news, make news. i.e. create events that get covered - do
things! Do things out of the normal routine to get coverage. Do things that will be covered in a way that reflects your goals. A few nugget from the book that could have been pulled from 2016 election coverage: "axiomatic that men who know little are often intolerant of a point of view that is contrary to their own." "the printing press a wonderfully effective means for perpetuating crowd-movements and keeping great masses of people constantly under the sway of certain
crowd-ideas." “Nothing so easily catches general attention and grips a crowd as a contest of any kind,” "Republican platform contains a declaration of principle, no matter how vague, which awakens profound emotional response in us, or because our neighbor whom we do not like happens to be a Democrat." "Man is never so much at home as when on the band wagon." "When real news is scarce, semi-news returns to the front page." "opposition is generally characterized by a
high degree of disunity." "opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity." "interlapping group formation of society;...the continuous shifting of groups" "A debate will draw a larger crowd than a lecture." "difference between “propaganda” and “education,” really, is in the point of view." "truth is rather more relative in Washington than anywhere else."
Jan 02, 2012 Erica rated it it was amazing The psychology of marketing. You'll be as mad as I was realizing how easily swayed we are. The psychology of marketing. You'll be as mad as I was realizing how easily swayed we are. ...more
Unfinished on account of this being so exceptionally effective it destroyed the west.
As the founder of public relations counsel, Edward Bernays speaks of the increasing significance of the public relations counsel both as a profession and a
new field of interest. His visionary ideas foresaw the role public relations would play in a democratic society at that time and in the future. I found particularly compelling his views on the "herd instinct" explaining how mass perception works, how marginal their sense of reality is, and how the public mind needs to be managed by an educate As the founder of public relations counsel, Edward Bernays speaks of the increasing significance of the
public relations counsel both as a profession and a new field of interest. His visionary ideas foresaw the role public relations would play in a democratic society at that time and in the future. I found particularly compelling his views on the "herd instinct" explaining how mass perception works, how marginal their sense of reality is, and how the public mind needs to be managed by an educated elite. However, he underlines the ethical necessities that would prevent the public from being taken
advantage of. Walter Lipmann's views are also highly visible through the writing. His ideas on "creating consent among the governed" stand out. Also, of equal significance I would rate Bernays' undertaking on stereotypes, susceptibility to suggestion, preconceptions characteristic to the public mind. Without doubt, Bernays' principles can be successfully applied to the present day reality (with obvious implicit considerations to technological advancements that transformed the scene of
advertising marketing even more). Credit should be given to Stuart Ewen for writing such a good fitting introduction to the book: critical, historical, and at the same time personal. Favorite quote:
The long introduction, added after the first addition, discusses the history of public relations. The rest of the book, published in 1923, is about the need for public relations, some of its techniques, and its ethics.
Feb 22, 2017 Dina rated it really liked it Good, solid book. Funny, how most of what we think are our opinions is actually based on someone's else view, be it a book, article, movie....or "news". Good, solid book. Funny, how most of what we think are our opinions is actually based on someone's else view, be it a book, article, movie....or "news". ...more
Doesn't build any new ideas out from Walter Lippmann's similarly-titled book. Instead, the book itself acts as a kind of PR campaign for the existence of the PR industry. Doesn't build any new ideas out from Walter Lippmann's similarly-titled book. Instead, the book itself acts as a kind of PR campaign for the existence of the PR industry. ...more
Nov 10, 2018 Dan rated it liked it This book was hard to rate for me because it was both fascinating and surprising, but also
kind of boring. I think it's because there was quite a bit of repetition. Edward Bernays is known as "the father of public relations" so this book, written in 1923, was really one of the earliest descriptions of the relatively new job of "public relations counsel." We are way more exposed to PR in today's world than they were in 1923 so that's probably why I found some of the material repetitive and boring This book was hard to rate for me because it
was both fascinating and surprising, but also kind of boring. I think it's because there was quite a bit of repetition. Edward Bernays is known as "the father of public relations" so this book, written in 1923, was really one of the earliest descriptions of the relatively new job of "public relations counsel." We are way more exposed to PR in today's world than they were in 1923 so that's probably why I found some of the material repetitive and boring. When I first heard about this book I
thought it was going to be more about the dark side of PR, such as using propaganda and sneaky tactics to brainwash people into thinking what you want them to. Bernays does have a book called "Propaganda" which I haven't read, but this book wasn't at all what I initially thought it would be. Bernays' main point, at least it seemed to me, was the idea that the PR professional needs to "create news" to get people talking about whatever it is his client wants to sell or promote. He describes two
theories about how people think. One is that people are stubborn and can't have their minds changed. The other theory is that people are malleable and can be made to think whatever you want them to. He says that the truth lies between the two theories and that the PR professional's main value to his client is to figure out how to make the message appealing to all types of people. Bernays' uncle was Sigmund Freud so he mixes in quite a bit about human psychology, especially about our
tendency to form "herds" and "bandwagons." He says that most people's opinions are formed by looking to a leader that they trust such as a politician, a religious leader, a professor, etc. People don't have time or the drive to research every single opinion so it's easier to find someone they trust and then fall in line with their leader's opinions. From the book and also the long introduction at the beginning it sounds like Bernays was very high and mighty as he essentially sorts people into
the smart people and the stupid people. It's the smart people, of which there are very few, who have the responsibility of keeping things running and molding peoples' minds to go along with the program. Here is a quote from the introduction about Bernays: "He expressed little respect for the average person's ability to think out, understand, or act upon the world in which they live...Bernays then sketched a picture of the public relations expert as a member of the 'intellegent few' who
advises clients on how to 'deal with the masses...just by applying psychology.'" Here are some other parts of the book that I found interesting/funny: "The job of a public relations counsel is to instruct a client on how to take actions that 'just interrupt the continuity of life in some way to bring about the media response.'" "A good public relations man advises his client to carry out an overt act interrupting the continuity of life in some way to bring about a response." "The exercise of discretion cannot be left to the reporter. It is safer to hire a press agent who stands between the group and the newspapers." "The mental equipment of the average individual consists of a mass of judgements on most of the subjects which touch his daily physical or mental life. These judgments are the tools of his daily being and yet they are his judgments, not on a basis of research and logical deduction, but for the most part dogmatic expressions accepted on the authority of his parents, his teachers, his church, and of his social, his economic, and other leaders." "The bulk of such opinions must necessarily be without rational basis, since many of them are concerned with problems admitted by the expert to be still unsolved, while as to the rest it is clear that the training and experience of no average man can qualify him to have any opinion upon them at all. The rational method adequately used would have told him that on the great majority of these questions there could be for him but one attitude - that of suspended judgement. The reader will recall from his own experience an almost infinite number of instances in which the amateur has been fully prepared to deliver expert advice and to give final judgment in matters upon which his ignorance is patent to every one except himself." "It is seldom effective to call names or to attempt to discredit the beliefs themselves." "Mayor Gaynor's comments shortly after his election in 1909 'led up to the conclusion that in our common sense generation nobody cares what the newspapers say.'" "H.L. Mencken, writing in the same magazine for March, 1914, declares that 'one of the principal marks of an educated man, indeed, is the fact that he does not take his opinions from newspapers - not, at any rate, from the militant, crusading newspapers. On the contrary, his attitude toward them is almost always one of frank cynicism, with indifference as its mildest form and contempt as its commonest. He knows that they are constantly falling into false reasoning about the things within his personal knowledge, - that is, within the narrow circle of his special education, - and so he assumes that they make the same, or even worse, errors about other things, whether intellectual or moral. This assumption, it may be said, is quite justified by the facts.'" "A middle ground exists between the hypothesis that the public is stubborn and the hypothesis that it is malleable...the truth of the matter, as I have pointed out, lies somewhere between these two extreme positions." "...it is so tremendously difficult to affect or change stereotypes or to attempt to substitute one set of stereotypes for another." "It is here, says Mr. Trotter, that we find 'the ineradicable impulse mankind has always displayed towards segregation into classes. Each one of us in his opinions and conduct, in matters of amusement, religion, and politics, is compelled to obtain the support of a class, of a herd within the herd." "That the press is so frequently unable to achieve a result on which its combined members are unanimously set makes it evident that the press itself is working in a medium which it cannot entirely control." "Which you prefer is a matter of taste, but not entirely a matter of the editor's taste. It is a matter of his judgment as to what will absorb the half hour's attention a certain set of readers will give to his newspaper." "The development of the United States to its present size and diversification has intensified the difficulty of creating a common will on any subject because it has heightened the natural tendency of men to separate into crowds opposed to one another in point of view. This difficulty is further emphasized by the fact that often these crowds live in different traditional, moral and spiritual worlds." "Domination today is not a product of armies or navies or wealth or policies. It is a domination based on the one hand upon accomplished unity, and on the other hand upon the fact that opposition is generally characterized by a high degree of disunity." "More specifically, why is it that the two national parties, Republican and Democrat, have maintained themselves as the dominant force for so many years? Only the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt seemed for a time to supersede them; and events since then have shown that it was Roosevelt and not his party who succeeded. The Farmer-Labor Party, the Socialist Party despite years of campaigning have failed to become even strongly recognizable opponents to the established groups. The disunity of forces which seek to overthrow dominant groups is illustrated every day in every phase of our lives." "Nothing so easily catches general attention and creates a crowd as a contest of any kind. The crowd unconsciously identifies its members with one or the other competitor. Success enables the winning crowd to 'crow' over the losers. Such an occasion becomes symbolic and is utilized by the ego to enhance its feelings of importance." "The only difference between 'propaganda' and 'education,' really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don't believe in is propaganda." "'The relativity of truth,' says Mr. Elmer Davis, 'is the commonplace to any newspaper man, even to one who has never studied epistemology; and, if the phrase is permissible, truth is rather more relative in Washington than anywhere else.'" "There is a different set of facts on every subject for each man." "The duty of the higher strata of society - the cultivated, the learned, the expert, the intellectual - is therefore clear. They must inject moral and spiritual motives into public opinion. Public opinion must become public conscience." ...more
Virtue must have an objective referent. 3.5 stars, actually. First, the rather flowery and annoying phrase "public relations council" is evidently implemented to avoid the term "propagandist," which may be inserted wherever it occurs. Two quotes: "[Public opinions of truth] are accepted and intolerantly maintained once they have been determined. In the struggle among ideas,
the only test is the one which Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court pointed out—the power of thought to get itself accepted in 3.5 stars, actually. First, the rather flowery and annoying phrase "public relations council" is evidently implemented to avoid the term "propagandist," which may be inserted wherever it occurs. Two quotes: "[Public opinions of truth] are accepted and
intolerantly maintained once they have been determined. In the struggle among ideas, the only test is the one which Justice Holmes of the Supreme Court pointed out—the power of thought to get itself accepted in the open competition of the market." That was the old way and the only humane way. The American way. The honorable culture in which Bernays found himself, undergirded by Christian assumptions. Not so much now. Most now agree that force is the "better way" and truth is determined by
a cadre of experts before which "inferiors" must remain forever silent. '“The future of public opinion,” says Professor Tonnies, “is the future of civilization. It is certain that the power of public opinion is constantly increasing and will keep on increasing. It is equally certain that it is more and more being influenced, changed, stirred by impulses from below. The danger which this development contains for a progressive ennobling of human society and a progressive heightening of
human culture is apparent. The duty of the higher strata of society—the cultivated, the learned, the expert, the intellectual—is therefore clear. They must inject moral and spiritual motives into public opinion.' This statement can be read in two ways. One, that arbitrary state commands must become the adopted moral and spiritual faith of the people -- the way many now read it, in fact. Or two, that the only legitimate basis for state authority is God's objective standard of truth
and virtue -- the way I read it. Pick sides carefully.
This is a fairly horrifying manifesto, penned by the "father of public relations" who in the early- to mid-20th century took the theories of (his uncle) Sigmund Freud and married them to both rhetoric and the logic of capitalism to invent a whole new occupation. Bernays gives an overview of the mentality of the "herd," talking about the emotions and primal drives for which the herd has an affinity. It's a bit like reading Aristotle's Rhetoric because the emphasis is on taxonomy. Lists of emotion This is a fairly horrifying manifesto, penned by the "father of public relations" who in the early- to mid-20th century took the theories of (his uncle) Sigmund Freud and married them to both rhetoric and the logic of capitalism to invent a whole new occupation. Bernays gives an overview of the mentality of the "herd," talking about the emotions and primal drives for which the herd has an affinity. It's a bit like reading Aristotle's Rhetoric because the emphasis is on taxonomy. Lists of emotions, drives, facets of this thing called the subconscious. Bernays uses this taxonomy to instruct the new "p.r. counsel" on how to succeed. Tremendously interesting. Bernays is often put on lists of the most influential people of the 20th century. Without him, no advertisements that associate products with abstractions, no media events, no celebrity endorsements, etc. ...more
It's almost like he's daring "the masses" to read his book. To Bernays, this is impossible because there
are no individuals in "the masses." I've long watched the wealthy wage class warfare on the poor. This book seems to be yet more proof of this. It also makes Noam Chomsky look terribly unoriginal. I've long watched the wealthy wage class warfare on the poor. This book seems to be yet more proof of
this. It also makes Noam Chomsky look terribly unoriginal.
A good starter book for understanding the work of the so-called "compliance professionals" (read: propagandists, marketers, pollsters, salespeople, political advocates, etc.). If you are already familiar with this ecosystem and possible channels, then this is not a book for you. The language was also a bit hard to swallow for a non-native English speaker, but overall I enjoyed the book. A good starter book for understanding the work of the so-called "compliance professionals" (read: propagandists, marketers, pollsters, salespeople, political advocates, etc.). If you are already familiar with this ecosystem and possible channels, then this is not a book for you. The language was also a bit hard to swallow for a non-native English speaker, but overall I enjoyed the book. ...more
Crystallizing Public Opinion is about the art and science of Public Relations. Bernays shares with us a wealth of knowledge about his life's work. This edition has an Introduction by Stuart Ewen that includes an exclusive
interview with Bernays in 1990. A timeless masterpiece! This edition has an Introduction by Stuart Ewen that includes an exclusive interview with Bernays in 1990. A timeless masterpiece!
Recommended by a friend. I have 5 stars because it was direct and to the point. The book is about directing public opinion in a positive way using the means available. Newspaper,
radio, movies, theater but not TV having not been invented yet. It was written in 1923.
Short
but important book Extremely relevant even after almost one hundred years. This book and Lippman's "Public Opinion" are must-read's for anyone interested in sociology, political science, education, marketing, etc. Also see Bernays' 1928 book, "Propaganda" . Extremely relevant even after almost one hundred years. This book and Lippman's "Public Opinion" are must-read's for anyone interested in
sociology, political science, education, marketing, etc. Also see Bernays' 1928 book, "Propaganda" .
Feb 01, 2022 AdamWho rated it it was ok This is an "important book" but it is REALLY dated and boring to read. I
am sure that it was decades ahead of its time when it was written, but we have learned these lessons... for better or worse. I am sure that it was decades ahead of its time when it was written, but we have learned these lessons... for better or worse.
Useful observations, but could have been summarized in a few pages. Written a long time ago, not in the efficient, engaging style popular today, so pretty tough to slog through for the gold nuggets.
The ambivalence on the ability (and so called justifiable need) to
influence public opinion in the 1920s, has, due to the efforts of Bernays and others, largely been eroded. Undoubtedly the pitch for the need for a public relations counsel as a profession (the fundamental premise of this book) has been a resounding success (or unmitigated disaster) as evidenced almost a century later. Bernays writes "The explosive ideals of democracy challenged ancient customs that long upheld social inequality. Bernays writes "The explosive ideals of democracy challenged ancient customs that long upheld social inequality.
A public claiming the birthright of democratic citizenship and social justice increasingly called upon the institutions and people of power to justify themselves and their privileges. In the crucible of these changes, aristocracy began to give way to technocracy as a strategy of rule." That 'techocracy' in the 21st century represents a grotesque three-way demon spawn of runaway capitalistic ideals, leadership and emotional intelligence of 20yr olds, and vastly powerful computing power;
would no doubt be a matter of utter lament for Bernays, were he around today (one hopes). He writes "The future of public opinion, says Professor Tonnies, is the future of civilization. It is certain that the power of public opinion is constantly increasing and will keep on increasing. It is equally certain that it is more and more being influenced, changed, stirred by impulses from below. The danger which this development contains for a progressive ennobling of human society and a
progressive heightening of human culture is apparent. The duty of the higher strata of society—the cultivated, the learned, the expert, the intellectual—is therefore clear. They must inject moral and spiritual motives into public opinion. Public opinion must become public conscience.” Clearly the need for spiritual motives and morality is beyond dispute, but whether Bernays meant to include the PR counsel in the league of "the higher strate of society - the cultivated, the learned, the
expert and the intellectual" is left to the readers imagination.
Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire book. In fact, based on the review of top contributor Trevor (”I sometimes get notified of comments”) I only read the introduction by Stuart Ewert.
Trevor's quote of "...something happens in the introduction to this book that does as much to help explain Bernays and his ideas as anything else in the book.” sold me on this decision. Given that the rating is based on the introduction rather than the original content, I acknowledge that the rating is unfair Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire book. In fact, based on the review of top contributor Trevor (”I sometimes get notified of
comments”) I only read the introduction by Stuart Ewert. Trevor's quote of "...something happens in the introduction to this book that does as much to help explain Bernays and his ideas as anything else in the book.” sold me on this decision. Given that the rating is based on the introduction rather than the original content, I acknowledge that the rating is unfair. However from the introduction, I gathered that Bernays has a disdain for the "masses". He finds them to be too stupid and/or
uneducated to be "allowed" to make their own decisions. According to him, the masses hold firm and uneducated beliefs about all sorts of topics. In contrast, the elites have a better and more broad understanding of what's best for society. Based on this, the elites should control/sway the masses. To control the public, the PR professional should aim to comprise to message so it appeals both to those too stubborn to change their mind and those so malleable that they'll believe anything.
From this, the message reaches the entire spectrum of personalities that comprise the masses. This is, in turn, done by appealing to emotions rather than reasons. In addition, what separates the ineffective PR professional from the effective is her ability to get people talking about whatever his client wants to sell/promote. Quote I found to be illuminating of Bernays views of PR:
Aug 16, 2021 tanner rated it it was amazing in
Crystallizing Public Opinion, Bernays has created a brilliant primer to the world of public opinion. Though written before many of the advancements of modern media, much of what Bernays wrote still holds true. The clear analysis of group mentality, messaging and medium, and the business of journalism from a public
relations point of view combine to paint a clear picture of the media landscape. Bernays's ability to distill complex information into easy-to-understand, often story-based, learnin Bernays's ability to distill complex information into easy-to-understand, often story-based, learning material is helpful in understanding the complexities of the reality of
communications. Nearly every point is made clear with a specific example of the aspects in action. Though Bernays arguably does not do enough to emphasize the danger of many of the strategies he writes, no one can argue their effectiveness. Even in the modern era, with media attention far more difficult to obtain, Bernays words will still bring incredible value to anyone who reads this book.
This was LITERALLY just an advertisement/marketing ploy cleverly disguised as a semi-sociological work. And either everyone was remarkably unsophisticated in the 1920s or this was written for the selfsame schmucks Bernays refers to as the "herd." I read nothing that I have not heard ad nauseam from every "free thinker" with a YouTube channel since time immemorial. Perhaps if there was something slightly novel about these ideas OR if Bernays could have gotten out of the way it *might* have been i This was LITERALLY just an advertisement/marketing ploy cleverly disguised as a semi-sociological work. And either everyone was remarkably unsophisticated in the 1920s or this was written for the selfsame schmucks Bernays refers to as the "herd." I read nothing that I have not heard ad nauseam from every "free thinker" with a YouTube channel since time immemorial. Perhaps if there was something slightly novel about these ideas OR if Bernays could have gotten out of the way it *might* have been interesting. But after grinding half way through there is nothing remotely revelatory about this text. You can get a much better actual understanding of mass society and manipulation from reading Jacques Ellul, Guy Debord, and even Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. Hell, his uncle Freud made all of the same superficial points about humanity but at least with a bit of poetry (if not more cynicism). Really, just read Society of the Spectacle. ...more
Chomsky's recommendation was spot on This book explains what is wrong with American politics and media today. The last 12 pages contain Bernays'
advocating for public relations to embrace and support the highest ethical virtues of a culture. Main Stream Media has failed the American public, precisely because the wizards behind the curtains have abandoned the compassion and honesty which are foundational to any respectable media, religion, business, scientific, or political entity. This book explains what is wrong with American
politics and media today. The last 12 pages contain Bernays' advocating for public relations to embrace and support the highest ethical virtues of a culture. Main Stream Media has failed the American public, precisely because the wizards behind the curtains have abandoned the compassion and honesty which are foundational to any respectable media, religion, business, scientific, or political entity.
Self explanatory ideas if you have thought a bit about the topic at hand before. There are a few gems though.
This book had some value to me at the start and I found helpful nuggets here and there, but it is largely outdated and hilariously out of touch in the modern age. Based on Ewen's introduction, I also
found Bernays to be particularly hypocritical and sour. I don't regret reading this, but I don't think I'd read other books by Bernays as I had planned on earlier. I don't regret reading
this, but I don't think I'd read other books by Bernays as I had planned on earlier.
"The institutions that make public opinion carry on against a background which is in itself a controlling factor". The print i'm reading has tons of typos and run on sentences. It seems like the
writer found specific examples to reinforce his ideas rather than come to conclusions based on events. The print i'm reading has tons of typos and run on sentences. It seems like the writer found specific examples to reinforce his ideas rather than come to conclusions based on events.
Nov 19, 2019 Joe Richardson rated it really liked it Much better than "Propaganda" if one wishes to understand how these principles work to shape the modem world. Also more useful if one wants to use them for whatever reason. I think. Haven't tried it myself Much better than "Propaganda" if one wishes to understand how these principles work to shape the modem world. Also more useful if one wants to use them for whatever reason. I think. Haven't tried it myself ...more
Jan 10, 2022 Troy Zaher marked it as did-not-finish DNFd near the beginning. Read for my Literary Editing and Publishing MA class. I honestly can’t tell you anything about this book. It’s probably fine. The introduction was interesting but I just didn’t have time
last semester to invest in a book that didn’t seem that useful. was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations" was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations" ...more News & InterviewsHere in the U.S., it’s time once again for National Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs annually from September 15 through October 15. In... “no matter how objectionable the character of a paper may be, it is always a trifle better than the patrons on whom it relies for its support.” — 3 likes “People accept the facts which come to them through existing channels. They like to hear new things in accustomed ways. They have neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts that are not readily available to them.” — 2 likes More quotes…Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Which practitioner is credited with coining the term public relations counsel?Bernays is credited with coining the term public relations counsel in his first book on the subject, Crystallizing Public Opinion, originally published in 1923. In 1928, he published Propaganda, and in 1952, Public Relations.
Who coined the name public relations?A nephew of Freud, Edward Bernays (1891-1995) “invented” modern PR and coined the term “public relations.” He used a blend of psychology and media savvy to influence public opinion. Like other PR men who would follow, he started by doing propaganda work for the U.S. government, but Bernays' era was World War I.
Who was the first public relations practitioner?Bernays, (born November 22, 1891, Vienna, Austria—died March 9, 1995, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.), pioneer American publicist who is generally considered to have been the first to develop the idea of the professional public relations counselor—i.e., one who draws on the social sciences in order to motivate and ...
Who was best known as the first person to coin the term public relations counsel?
|
Which practitioner is credited with coining the term public relations counsel in the 1923 book crystallizing public opinion?
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.ketajaman Inc.
